The CopyKat

Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda has got herself into a bit of a pickle after a tweet on World Intellectual Property Day saying that she was “trying to read Anne Frank’s Diary” but couldn’t because of the EU copyright term. The Anne Frank Foundation has claimed that despite Anne's death in 1945,  the Diary is still protected under EU law as the co-author of the Diary was Anne's father Otto, who edited the published editions, and he didn't die until 1980. However, putting aside whether or not the book should be in the public domain,  Canadian poet and head of the Writers Union of Canada, John Degen pointed out that Ms Reda could of course read the book (its available on Kindle for as little as $1.99) - its just she did't want to pay to read it - and her 'struggle' somewhat pales into insignificance when compared to Frank's own persecution at the hands of the Nazis. The Register has more here.

YouTube is promising to update its Content ID system - not just to appease the record companies and movie studios who complain about it is remarkably unsophisticated nature - not least as Google are a leading technology company - but also to appease YouTubers who say that their material is sometimes taken down by mistake, and revenues they are due withheld. Following the update to Content ID which YouTube says will take place in "the coming months," YouTube will continue collecting revenue from those disputed videos, holding it 'in a kind of escrow' and releasing it to the eventual winner of any copyright dispute. More CBC.

The High Court in Johannesburg has found that news articles can be protected by copyright law. The Court held that the Copyright Act provided that literary works‚ including news articles‚ are eligible for copyright if they are original finding that Moneyweb had been able to prove that three of its seven articles used in part by defendant Fin24 were original works. However‚ the court found that Moneyweb had failed to show that Media 24’s financial website Fin24 had reproduced substantial parts of two of the articles found to be original works.

The UK government has published its strategy for tackling IP infringement over the next four years. The document reveals some interesting times ahead, including a review of the effectiveness of notice and takedown regimes and the possibility of rightsholders tracking down infringers within them. The strategy Protecting Creativity, Supporting Innovation: IP Enforcement 2020 has six key points, with reducing the level of illegal online content placed at the top of the list and strengthening the law closely after. The government also wants to increase its educational programs with the aim of building respect for intellectual property. TorrentFreak explains all here. Image (c) Ben Challis. Yes, really!

Billboard reports that anti-piracy firm Rightscorp is questioning its own viability after releasing some dismal first-quarter financial results. The company reported an operating loss of $784,180 during the three months ended March 31, a slight improvement from the $930,000 loss a year earlier. But the bad news is that Rightscorp only generated revenues of $68,283, a 78 percent drop from 2015 Q1’s $307,904, and its services accrued only $49,142 due to copyright holders -- a third of the $153,952 gathered during the first three months of 2015.

Cox on the back foot in claim by BMG

A District Court in America has made a potentially devastating ruling for Internet service Providers and possible online platforms, ruling that the current U.S. DMCA legislation does not, on the facts of a case brought by two music publishers and Rightscorp against Cox Communications, shield the major Internet provider from liability for illegal music downloading by its subscribers.

Two music companies, BMG Rights Management LLC and Round Hill Music LP, filed a lawsuit against Cox in 2014, claiming that Cox, which provides Internet service to millions of people, deliberately turned a blind eye to illegal downloading by its subscribers stating: “Cox has repeatedly refused to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers“and ”The reason that Cox does not terminate these subscribers and account holders is obvious—it would cause Cox to lose revenue.” BMG and Round Hill claimed that Rightscorp Inc had informed Cox  of “hundreds” of repeat infringers. They allege that Cox had failed to ​do anything in regard to these customers and has thus given up its "safe harbor" protection under the provisions of the DMCA. Rightscorp's data allows them to identify "repeat infringers" that use BitTorrent to download large quantities of music. Rightscorp insists that ISPs like Cox must respond when it identifies those users, and forward its notices demanding a setlement of $20 per song or else face a copyright lawsuit. BMG and Round Hill were seeking damages for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and a judicial order requiring Cox to "promptly forward 
plaintiffs' infringement notices to their subscribers."

Cox Communications, the third largest cable TV company in the U.S., but was the one major player absent from the deal struck between the content owners and service providers back in 2011 (the Copyright Alert System) which did involved the likes of Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon.

Cox responded In court papers stating it had no “actual” knowledge of any specific infringements, and that the plaintiffs had no evidence of Cox account holders personally infringing through their Cox accounts.

The case is now expected to go trial next week, to determine whether Cox should be held liable for its alleged role in any infringement, and, if so, how much it should have to pay. A full opinion is also expected. It is also likely that Round Hill will drop out of the claim, after the ruling cast doubt on their standing as a plaintiff. 

In the order, Judge Liam O’Grady agreed with the plaintiffs, saying that Cox essentially failed to set up and enforce a “repeat-infringer” policy - a decision that could potentially open a floodgate for new claims against the cable industry and ISP by content owners: “This ruling is potentially very concerning to every user of the Internet, who may stand substantially less protected than before,” said Charles Duan, a staff attorney with Public Knowledge, the Washington, D.C., group that advocates for greater consumer access to the Internet and other technologies. The Judge held:  "There is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants reasonably implemented a repeat-infringer policy" as required by the law. 

The Judge refused to allow the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge to file an amicus brief supporting Cox saying (according to TechDirt): "It adds absolutely nothing helpful at all" and "It is a combination of describing the horrors that one endures from losing the Internet for any length of time. Frankly, it sounded like my son complaining when I took his electronics away when he watched YouTube videos instead of doing homework. And it's completely hysterical."

In a rebuttal to BMG's accusations, Cox described Rightscorp as selling "shady services" to copyright owners. Rightscorp "shakes down ISP customers for money without regard to actual liability, and it tries to enlist ISPs in its scheme," Cox lawyers write. The ISP doesn't act on Rightscorp's notices because they're "wrongful" and inadequate, but Rightscorp kept dumping "thousands of notices per day" on the ISP. When Cox wouldn't get on board, Rightscorp and its biggest client sued. "This suit is Rightscorp's retribution, with Plaintiffs’ complicity, for Cox’s refusal to participate in Rightscorp’s scheme," state Cox lawyers.

Cox said it  "works well with many copyright holders," but considered Rightscorp notices "improper, as involving extortion and blackmail." In a mostly redacted section of its legal brief, Cox describes its system of "graduated response" for responding to allegations of copyright infringement. Cox notes that account termination is "not the industry norm" but goes on to emphasize that it does, in fact, terminate some account holders because of copyright complaints. But "the decision requires discretion," since some subscribers don't understand what gave rise to copyright complaints and may need help keeping their Internet access secure, or removing malware, before the company takes the "extreme measure of termination."

On the other hand ........ Comcast's practice of injecting copyright warners into the video streams of customers who may be illegally watching content has drawn renewed criticism from Internet pundits who say the company should leave its users' traffic alone. Privacy and security fears have been raised by San Francisco developer Jarred Sumner who published a code for the Comcast alert banner on his GitHub page.  Drawing interest from ZDNet and others, Sumner described Comcast's injection of the warning banners as a "man-in-the-middle" attack in which the MSO intercepts traffic between the user and their servers. 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/with-a-week-to-go-before-rightscorp-trial-cox-loses-key-dmca-motion/ and  http://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-rules-against-cox-communications-in-copyright-case-1448404833

The CopyKat - trolling tonight

Freeplay, the US-based library music company, which has been providing music for bedroom filmmakers for their YouTube videos, has filed litigation against four 'multi-channel networks', accusing the the firms of abusing licences they had designed for user-generated videos to circumvent having to pay for the music used in their commercial content. The companies being sued include some of the big guns in the growing MCN space: Disney's Maker Studios, DreamWorks Animation's Awesomeness, Big Frame and BroadbandTV Corp. Two more - Machinima and Collective Digital Studio - which launched pre-emptive strikes against Freeplay last week, are set to receive countersuits from the music rights owner in due course. Freeplay offers a licence to amateur video makers that allows them to use music from the Freeplay library free of charge, on the condition Freeplay is able to subsequently monetise that content on YouTube using Google's Content-ID system to collect ad revenues. But Freeplay charges commercial content producers $250 a year for a licence - and says that licence is designed for personal Youtube channels - NOT MCNS. Freeplay say they used the audio fingerprint technology TuneSat to locate their music on numerous MCN-operated channels all being used without the right licence. The lawsuits allege that Freeplay contacted the four MCNs about licensing the music, but that they were not willing to negotiate. The suits seek unspecified monetary damages and demand that the infringement cease. Machinima and Collective Digital Studio argue that Freeplay is deliberately confusing amatuer video makers into using the free sync music from Freeplay's libraries - only to be subsequently invoiced, or threatened with legal action when the usage is classified as commercial. The MCNs go as far call Freeplay's approach 'copyright trolling'. More on Variety here.

And more on alleged trolling - this tme its all about a Australian wine maker called Stephen Moignard who has designed an algorithm called Plfer to hunt down "substantially similar" text across multiple websites and serve demand letters to alleged copyright infringers. TechDirt is of the opinion that Plfer's detection algorithm bears many similarities to commercial plagiarism detection software, albeit with a few tweaks that allow it to bypass web formatting and other obstacles that might throw off comparisons. TechDirt also have some queries about Mr Moignard's maths and interpretation of the law - and all in all its a very interesting read, even for luddites like the CopyKat. The beta site for Plfer is here and the value of copyright infringements currently 'detected' is a whopping $1,413,463,665.

And finally on this: Two people targeted by one of Rightscorp's anti-piracy programmes in the U.S. say that the somewhat controversial company has violated America's Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending them automated calls and text messages without permission. In a lawsuit filed with the federal court in Georgia, Melissa Brown and Ben Jenkins deny downloading any copyright infringing content, but say Rightscorp broke communication laws by following up an initial letter with calls and texts attempting to gain a settlement for alleged infringements.

The Daily Mail reports that a German historical society is set to publish an annotated edition of Hitler's controversial tome Mein Kampf after the book's copyright expires later this year. The Munich Institute for Contemporary History (IfZ) says it will publish a two-volume edition of the book in which the Nazi leader outlines his anti-Semitic beliefs and plans for world domination. The new volume will consist of a total of 2,000 pages. However just 780 of these will contain Hitler's original text - the rest will be comments from contributors and the work will also contain a new introduction and index. Copyright in the book is held by the State of Bavaria. In January 2012 the 1709 blog reported that the District Court of Munich I (LG München I) had issued a preliminary injunction on behalf of the Bavarian state government, prohibiting the planned publication of commented excerpts of Mein Kampf by British publisher Peter McGee because of the copyright. The injuction was subsequently upheld. Bavaria also indicated that Germany's anti-Nazi laws might be a bar publication - now more pertinent as copyright expires 70 years after Hitlers death in 1945.  In Decmnber 2013, reversing a pervious postion, The Bavarian governor's chief of staff, Christine Haderthauer, said the book amounted to incitement to hatred and the government would file criminal complaints if anyone tried to publish the book when the copyright expired.  In 2012 the then President of Germany's Central Council of Jews said he hoped that the reprints would ‘demystify" the book. "I'm an Internet junkie myself" he said. "Everyone can already find the book on the Web." However, an American Jewish group countered saying the publication plans could be morally offensive and last year Dieter Graumann, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said that he was strongly opposed to the book going on sale. 

Vivian Maier - self portrait

The epic battle over who owns the copyright in the photography of Chicago nanny Vivian Maier has had a couple of new skirmishes, Maier, who had a 'secert life' as a photographer, snapped over 150,000 images in and around Chigago from the 1950s onwards. Maier made no attempt herself to sell or exploit her intimate and often-gritty photography of everyday people, rich and poor, and often submitted the films she took for developing under false names. She never registered any copyrights in her images. A few years ago interest in her work exploded, and prints of her photographs from this bygone era have sold for thousands of dollars.John Maloof, a 33-year-old former Chicago real estate agent who features in and co-directs the Oscar nominated documentary Finding Vivian Maier and who has a large collection of her work, is facing a claim that might stop him exploitating the images and indeed the film. In 2007 Maloof bought a box full of Maier's negatives at auction for $380 from a repossessed storage locker and he now owns the vast majority of her work, more than 100,000 images that are mostly in negatives or undeveloped film. He traced Maier's whereabouts to the Chicago area in 2009, but too late - she had recently died at the age of 83. 1709 readers will know only to well that possession of the negatives and prints is not ownership of the copyright in those images.  the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act automatically gave federal copyright protection to works that were created but neither published nor registered before January 1, 1978 and that terj extends for 70 years after the death of the author. And Maloof seems to have found an heir who "assigned" him copyrights. Now enter Virginia-based David Deal, a longtime commercial photographer who read about Maier as he completed a law degree: he has sparked the legal fight by filing a notice in a Chicago probate court identifying a relative of Maier who lives in France, retired bureaucrat Francis Baille, a first cousin once removed who apararently had never heard of his increasingly famous relative. Maloof counters by saying  Maier's closest relative is one Sylvain Jaussaud, also described as a first cousin once removed. Jaussaud, who did know Maier and appears Maloof's film, apparently signed over the copyrights in Maier's work to Maloof. And now another party has joined into the tussle: Cook County, which represents Maier's estate (in the interim), woud seemingly hold all copyrights at the moment in the abscence of any assignment by Maier herself. It appears Cook County lawyers are speaking with Maloof and we can only hope that a sensble solution can be reached so this extraordinary body of work doesn't get locked away. More here and a September article on the IPKat by Marie-Andree Weiss here and on Art & Artifice here.

The Oscars are out so a couple of film updates to finish: Director Dan Gilroy, Bold Films, Open Road Films and NBC Universal Media have been accused of copyright infringement amid allegations that the plot of the Oscar-nominated movie 'Nightcrawler' was lifted from a film by a Utah filmmaker Richard Dutcher. Dutcher has filed a lawsuit in Salt Lake City's US District Court, claiming Nightcrawler bears striking similarities to his 2007 movie 'Falling', about a freelance news videographer who scans police radio channels and captures footage of a murder in progress (which on paper sounds remarkably similar to the excellent Nighcrawler). Dutcher's film, which was written in 1999, only received a limited release in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City, but he is convinced it gave Gilroy the idea for his 2014 crime thriller, which stars the creepy but magnifcent Jake Gyllenhaal in the lead role. We shall see. 

 And a woman who filed a lawsuit against Disney’s ‘Frozen’ in late 2014 over alleged copyright infringement of her life memoirs (no, seriously!) has perhaps unsurprisingly  had her case thrown out by a Judge. Isabella Tanikumi decided to take legal action against Disney because, in her view, the film’s story ripped off her real-life memoirs, titled ‘Yearnings of the Heart’, which revolved around her family’s lives in the mountainous areas of Peru.  U.S. District Judge William Martini disagreed stated that the themes appearing in Frozen and Yearnings of the Heart are expressed differently. All the themes that Tanikumi listed are general plot ideas and themes that are not protected by copyright law and the judge noted no substantial similarities between the two works. More here.


At the Oscars, Birdman picked up best picture, best cinematography, best original screenplay and best dirrector (Alejandro González Iñárritu); 
Eddie Redmayne picked up best actor for his role as Dr Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything and Julianne Moore collected best actress for Still Alice. J K Simmons won best supporting actor (in Whiplash) and Patricia Arquette won best supporting actress (in Boyhood). Whiplash also picked up Ocsars for best editing and best sound mix and The Grand Budapest Hotel won Oscars for best production design, best costume design, best make up and best original music score by Alexandre Desplat . The Imitation Game won best adapted screenplay and Interstellar the award for achievement in visual effects .Best Song gong went to John Legend and Common for 'Glory', the theme song from 'Selma'  More here.

The CopyKat - Friday's furballs of fun

The Australian internet service provider  iiNET, which has long resisted federal efforts to mandate copyright protection schemes, and which won an important High Court decision in April 2012 that confirmed that internet service providers are not liable for authorising copyright infringement by making their services available to people who do infringe copyright, has called on its customers to make their voices known by writing to politicians at the heart of moves to introduce legislation which the ISP says would require ISPs such as iiNet to send infringement notices to its customers while, at the same time, blocking certain websites which provide access for customers to download and share unauthorised content. Writing in the iiNET blog, Steve Dalby, Chief Regulatory Officer, notes what he describes as “recycled” claims suggesting Australia is the worst nation in the world for Internet piracy. “This may not actually be the case, but there can be no debate that work still remains to be done to effectively combat piracy,” he says. More on Advanced Television here.

With both the RESPECT Act (which would close the loophole that allows digital music services, like SiriusXM, to stream music recorded before 1972 without paying for the use of the sound recordings, and the Songwriter Equity Act, which if passed would give songwriters more leeway to argue for higher royalties when their songs are played by digital streaming services - facing scrutiny in the U.S. House of Representatives, alongside a new  push was for a comprehensive registry of music, with songs given unique identifiers, so that YouTube, Spotify, Pandora and others could easily determine who owns the various rights to any song in order to assure payment, arguments are mounting for one, combined bill to address music licensing reform. “Consumers don’t know the button they push on their car dashboard or smartphone dictates whether artists are paid,” for that song, said New York Democrat Rep. Jerrold Nadler during a hearing on copyright reform - with Nadler is referring to the patchwork of laws governing compensating music artists whether the song they produced is aired on satellite radio, terrestrial radio or Internet radio. Nadler confirmed he’s working on one "omnibus bill", to bring “fairness and efficiency to our music licensing system, and ensure that no particular business enjoys a special advantage against new and innovative technologies”  in an update to the  subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

A gushing press release from the record label's trade body IFPI tells us that Plácido Domingo, the world renowned artist and chairman of IFPI, has addressed the International IP Enforcement Summit being held in London where he urged governments not to allow copyright to be eroded in the digital age and highlighted the importance of intellectual property enforcement for protection of creators and culture. He told the meeting that protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights “is one of the most important missions in our society and for our culture today.” Domingo added: “There is a view – mistaken in my opinion - that in the digital world copyright matters less than in the physical world.  It is emphatically not so.  In fact, copyright needs protecting as vigorously – if not more vigorously – on the internet.” He addressed the debate around copyright reform in the EU.  “Europe will this year have new Commissioners and a new Parliament.  I urge them, in their review of copyright, to promote and protect copyright, not to weaken it.  Please, do not allow artist and producers’ rights to be eroded.  Rather, look at how they can be better enforced.” Domingo stressed the need for collaboration to protect intellectual property rights in the online world.  “We, in the creative world, cannot protect our rights alone.  We need help from the bigger actors.  The search engines, for example. When someone uses a search engine to find music, they should not be directed to illegal sources of music. This directly hurts artists and other creators.” He also called for help from governments.  “Enlightened governments will understand that strong, properly-enforced intellectual property rights lead to a rich culture and economic prosperity.”

And America's National Music Publishers' Association has estimated that the country's music publishers generate about $2.2 billion in revenue each year, but this is only about half what they should be making because of "outdated copyright law and government regulations". The gripe is really with about the role of the two main collection societies in the USA, ASCAP and BMI, and the major music publishers now want to start negotiating the 'public performance' right with the main streaming services directly rather than through the collective licensing system. NMPA chief David Israelite told reporters: "We are finally able to capture what the industry is worth and, more importantly, what our industry is losing. The new digital marketplace is changing how songwriters and their music publishing partners can thrive. As the marketplace evolves, it is essential our industry no longer be hamstrung by outdated laws and government regulation".

Techdirt tells us about a fascinating court filing made by lawyers acting for Malibu Media who, depending on whose camp you in, are either quite rightly defending the copyrights it owns and represents - or copyright trolls out to extract unneeded dollars from unsullied individuals having filed thirteen hundred lawsuits in the US in the last year. To be fair one US federal judge did support the erotic film company saying “Malibu [Media] is not what has been referred to … as a ‘copyright troll’ ”. Judge Michael Baylson added, “rather, Malibu is an actual producer of adult films and owns valid copyrights.” But now Malibu attorney Mary K Schultz has filed papers that seems to suggest a massive conspiracy against the fikm company - and that conspiracy includes opposing counsel saying:  "Plaintiff is the target of a fanatical Internet hate group. The hate group is comprised of BitTorrent users, anti-copyright extremists, former BitTorrent copyright defendants and a few attorneys. Opposing counsel is one of its few members. Indeed, as shown below, opposing counsel communicates regularly with the hate group’s leader. Members of the hate group physically threaten, defame and cyber-stalk Plaintiff as well everyone associated with Plaintiff. Their psychopathy is criminal and scary"

and  "By administering and using the defamatory blog www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com, “Sophisticated Jane Doe” (“SJD”) leads the hate group. SJD is a former defendant is a suit brought by another copyright owner... She is a self-admitted BitTorrent copyright infringer. SJD’s dedicates her life to stopping peer-to-peer infringement suits" and "Opposing counsel regularly Tweets with the other members of the hate group. Further, his Tweets are often part of a series of Tweets intended to harass Plaintiff and its counsel. Opposing counsel also Tweets about on-going litigation including this case and disparages Plaintiff... He even called Plaintiff a liar."  and "Opposing counsel is SJD’s and the other hate group members’ darling. They give him Kudos as he works toward trying to criminalize peer-to-peer copyright infringement suits."

Never publicity shy, Rightscorp Inc., the digital copyright protection service and of course the provider of copyright monetization for record labels and film companies across the globe, has unveiled brand new technology that could flood the Internet with millions of notices to alleged copyright infringers, according to Arts Technica. The strategy is based on telling the ISPs that they will face a high-stakes copyright lawsuit if they don't forward the notices that Rightscorp creates to their customers. If the ISP agrees, then they will have to forward Rightscorp's notices -  telling end users who have allegedly infringed the rights Rightscorp controls, that they could "be liable for $150,000 in damages unless they click on a provided link and agree to settle their case at a very low price." According to Rightscorp COO Robert Steele, asking for $20 per infringement is a fair way to create a deterrent. The company hopes to make the cost of infringement equal to a standard traffic ticket, while still keeping the threat of statutory damages. "Entertainers don't want to do that very often," said Steele. "They want to make people happy. For most people, a $10,000 judgment is a really tough thing. We're giving an opportunity for people to resolve the matter and recoup some loss to the creative, for a relatively small amount of money."

And finally, a US court has granted a request from MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom to put two lawsuits being pursued against him from the film and recorded music sectors on hold pending the ongoing criminal investigation into his former business. The stay will be reconsidered in August. Under the motion, the MPAA and RIAA are still free to add extra defendants and otherwise modify their lawsuits while the matter is on hold. Judge Liam O'Grady also agreed that the RIAA and MPAA  were free to take action to stop moves in New Zealand and Hong Kong to return previously frozen MegaUpload assets to Dotcom and his colleagues saying "[T]he court finds that each of the plaintiffs' proposed conditions are reasonable under the circumstances of this case because of the possibility that defendants' assets abroad may become unfrozen. Plaintiffs may institute and pursue any action in the United States or a foreign jurisdiction to preserve defendants' assets in the event that such action becomes necessary".

The CopyKat - global copytreats - with a distinct lack of divine inspiration

A German court has ruled that an American psychologist — and not Jesus Christ — is the author of a book that she said Christ dictated to her in a "waking dream." Well, at least for the purposes of authorship in copyright law. The late Helen Schucman said she was a vessel for the words of Christ in her book A Course in Miracles, and a German Christian group called the New Christian Endeavour Academy argued that they were therefore free to put text from the book up on their website without permission or payment, saying "For many there is no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth is the author of the course and that copyright law therefore doesn't apply to his work." The Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt  disagreed and ruled that the rights go to the actual writer of the book regardless of "divine inspiration".

Its evolution Charles,
but not as we know it

This from the Guardian: "There were some funkybeats at Imperial College London at its annual science festival. As well as opportunities to create bogeys, see robots dance and try to get physics PhD students to explain their wacky world, this fascinating event included the chance to participate in a public game-like experiment called DarwinTunes. Participants select tunes and "mate" them with other tunes to create musical offspring: if the offspring are in turn selected by other players, they "survive" and get the chance to reproduce their musical DNA". The experiment is online: http://darwintunes.org/  - and should it be repeated with music that is in copyright would raise all sorts of interesting challenges for copyright lawyers as the music 'evolves'. 

In New Zealand a summary of the FBI's case against Kim Dotcom has been made public. It alleges the German millionaire knowingly infringed copyright, monetarily rewarded other people for doing so and made more than $175 million in the process. Judge Nevin Dawson in the District Court lifted the prohibition order on publicising the FBI's case against Dotcom, which the Megaupload founder "had hoped to keep secret. Stuff explains that Dotcom's has issues with a document called the "Record of Case", a summary document from more than 22 million emails obtained by the FBI. The summary of the FBI's case was released by a United States district judge to potential victims at the end of last year. The summary is now no longer subject to prohibition orders in New Zealand.

The Bookseller reports that the International Publishers’ Association (IPA) and the Federation of European Publishers (FEP) have warned that Europe's creative industries risk being "severely" prejudiced by measures taken by the World Intellectual Property Organisation's (WIPO) committee on copyright: How so? Well WIPO's Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) is currently looking at limitations and exceptions to copyright internationally, with a particular focus on educational activities, libraries and archives, and on people with disabilities, particularly those with visually impairments - and the trade groups 
have joined others including the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers and the European Grouping of Societies of Authors and Composers, in calling for the European Union to clarify the mandate of the SCCR before it commits to further work on copyright limitations and exceptions. An open letter signed by the organisations stated that a "broad range of divergent views" exists among WIPO member states. The “future direction of the SCCR may have far-reaching implications for the international copyright framework”, especially in relation to topics including the limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, it said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has given the daughter of deceased screenwriter Frank Petrella a second chance to fight movie studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc over her claim it infringed the copyright of an early screenplay for what became the iconic boxing movie "Raging Bull." MGM had invoked "laches", the doctrine that an unreasonable delay in pursuing a claim is a defence against that claim. MGM moved for summary judgment, asserting the equitable defence of laches based upon the long and unreasonable delay in bringing suit. The District Court agreed, then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote on behalf of the majority (6-3) of the Supreme Court that the Copyright Act bar on lawsuits more than three years after a claim arises did not bar the lawsuit because Petrella has argued that  there was an ongoing infringement and Petrella was only claiming damages for the three years preceding the filing of her lawsuit saying " Laches, we hold, cannot be invoked to preclude adjudication of a claim for damages brought within the three-year window. As to equitable relief, in extraordinary circumstances, laches may bar at the very threshold the particular relief requested by the plaintiff. And a plaintiff’s delay can always be brought to bear at the remedial stage." The court was clear that equitable estoppel may also apply, but that generally requires some affirmative act by the rights-holder. More on Laches and as Jeremy explains on the IPKat - laches cannot bar legal claims for actual damages or profits arising out of copyright infringement

Vimeo CEO Kerry Trainor has told Billboard that the video streaming service is launching a "Content ID" system which will allow the company to be "a little more controlled" in terms of making sure that copyrighted material is not infringed. Simply referred to as Copyright Match, Vimeo’s system subjects uploaded content to a scanning algorithm that attempts to pick up on any conflicts of interest, like clips of movies or songs not intended for free use. Vimeo said “Over the last nine years, Vimeo has grown into one of the most visited video destinations in the world. We now have more than 26 million registered members, with over 170 million people swinging by monthly to watch awesome videos. At our size, we need a semi-automated system to help us enforce those beloved guidelines.”

The South China Morning Post says that one of China's most popular online platforms, Qvod, will be fined 260 million yuan (or a rather large £24.7 million or US $41.6 million
as I make it) by the Shenzhen Market Supervision and Administration Bureau for linking to pornographic material and copyright infringement. Qvod, founded in 2007, has been accused of allowing users to watch pirated material and pornographic content on the company's peer-to-peer video-player technology. Early last month, Qvod was compelled to shut down its servers after the National Copyright Administration said it continued to violate copyrights. On April 22nd Shenzhen police raided Qvod's headquarters and seized computers and equipment.

Rightscorp Inc  the "provider of monetisation services for artists and holders of copyrighted Intellectual Property" has announced  the addition of 500,000 new copyrights to it's representation catalogue, bringing its total ownership portfolio to over 1.5 million copyrights. According to Rightscorp, it has been actively increasing the number of copyrights that it can protect and monetise by constantly adding new copyrights into its system.

In France it seems that the French record industry is following its UK counterpart in seeking a web-block injunction against The Pirate Bay, which would force internet service providers in the country to stop their customers from accessing the controversial file-sharing site via its principle (albeit ever changing) domains. According to NextINpact, a lawsuit filed by the French Civil Society Of Phonographic Producers back in February is now being shared with France's net sector at large and the suit names over a hundred Pirate Bay proxies which would otherwise be used to avoid primary blocks.

And finally, Music Week reports that new copyright amendments are being prepared by the Ministry of Communications in Russia that could lead to entire websites being blocked by court order - even if they comply with takedown requests. With many feeling that some sites pay lip service to take down requests and indeed are turning a blind eye to a mass of infringing content elsewhere on their domains, Ministry of Communications deputy Alexei Volin said: “Unscrupulous illegal sites should be blocked entirely.”

The CopyKat - snappers paradise: skating clear of Getty's images, it's in Degeneres we trust!

In Taiwan, the Dutch television production company Endemol has lost a lawsuit against the the producers of a Taiwan game show called "Go to Top 101" which  it accused of copying its popular program called "1 vs 100."  "Go to Top 101" was a 29-episode show in which a single contestant went up against 101 contestants. It was aired by Taiwan's China Television Company in 2009 and was hosted by Hu Gua. Endemol argued that "Go to Top 101" had similar scenic designs as "1 vs 100" and just like the foreign show, made three "helps" available to contestants. The Taipei District Court ruled that although the two shows had very similar rules and ideas, elimination and helps are common concepts in game shows and should not be overly protected by copyright. 

Rival services in Australia have accused Netflix of turning a 'blind eye' to copyright - pointing out that although it has not launched in Australia, Netflix has anywhere between 50 and 200,000 subscribers there, who use a VPN (virtual private network) such as Hola to gain access, and yet the 'unavailable' service has no agreement with content owners to operate in the market in Australia.


Rightscorp, "the leading provider of monetization services for artists and holders of copyrighted Intellectual Property" has said that it has closed more than 60,000 cases of copyright infringement to sate. The company, which says it "helps monetize copyrighted intellectual property for rights holders and provides valuable Digital Millennium Copyrights Act compliance Solution for ISPs" announced that it has settled more than 60,000 cases of copyright infringement to date. The Company says that it's monetization service "successfully collected payments from illegal distributors through notifications sent by their Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on digital assets including music, films, books, video games and software." It will be interesting to see how the digital world reacts tp the news - this blogger expects cries of 'trolls ahoy' to echo around cyberspace.

Two copyright law professors have told the US Supreme Court that Aereo's service is illegal and they say that in denying broadcasters request for an injunction against Aereo, the Second Circuit of Appeals got just about everything wrong, misconstruing the "text, structure, specific legislative guidance, and general legislative purposes of the 1976 [Copyright] Act." Berkeley Law Professor Peter Menell and UCLA law professor David Nimmer say that the Second Circuit handed Aereo a copyright "get-out-of-jail-free card" that unravels the basis of the Copyright Act of 1976 that the Congress has reaffirmed  numerous, times saying in an amicus brief "That ruling cannot stand" submitting that the Court should hold that Aereo’s service infringes the copyright owners’ exclusive right of public performance," they said.

Getty Images has rolled a social sharing feature that "unshackles a vast section of its image collection". Getty’s new Embed tool will allow bloggers and the like to easily embed and share its imagery - at no cost - for  non-commercial use (hmmm, what DOES that mean) on websites, blogs and social media channels. Users will be obliged to include photographer attribution and provide a link back to Getty Images and the company said that the “embed” tool provides people with a simple and legal way to utilise content “that respects creators’ rights, including the opportunity to generate licensing revenue". I am so in awe of the previously ever litigious Getty that I have just stuck with the cowards mantra of 'no image' for this blog as Getty is mentioned (and I couldn't quite understand their website).  But we are not so worried by the Oscars ..........

(c) 2014 - but to whom?

Question: Who owns the copyright to Ellen's selfie image at the Oscars? Well apart from Eleonora's article and the 20 odd comments on the IPKat on this topic, and various opinions here  and here and here  (all saying the man who pushed the button, Bradley Cooper, owns it) we were alerted to a very well written opinion by photographer Bettie Robertson who said the snap belongs to Ellen DeGeneres -- and probably to Ellen alone - UNLESS -  she was doing this as part of a "work for hire" for the Academy - and that those featured in the "groupie" would  not be joint authors, and in all events Ellen told them what she was going to do with the snap - and Bradley who pushed the button "was just acting like a thoughtful gentleman".  The fairly heated discussion on the IPKat also suggested that sponsor Samsung might be the owner, having possibly directed Ellen to arrange the shot on the S5 mobile phone as a publicity stunt, although our very own John Enser opines "Surely the answer is that anyone who goes anywhere near the Oscars stage will have signed a release handing over all their rights to the Academy - so irrespective of who was the first owner, it is now owned by the Academy?".